On January 31, the Gloria Center Global Research in International Affairs asked if Times editors published "obviously faked photos." PJ Media's Middle East editor Barry Rubin's report was featured.

Suspect photos should have raised red flags. They should have been rejected. Times editors gave them front page coverage. Others were featured in a gallery online.

The front page caption read:

"Top, two insurgents in Damascus took positions before being hit by army snipers; the fighter on the right died soon after being dragged from the line of fire."

"On the political front, Syria’s top opposition leader expressed a willingness for the first time to talk with the government."

Somehow a photographer "managed to be in position to capture two men supposedly in peril."

One was shot and killed. The photographer "just happened to have the presence of mind - and luck - to set up a second camera."

Did he happen to be in the right place at the right time capturing events accurately? What he shot doesn't square with what happened?

"No smoking gun," said Rubin, "but I believe there is enough accumulated evidence present to be objectively suspicious."

Reuters Goran Tomasevic was the alleged photographer. Checking with the new agency for verification and learning why "the key photo" is "missing from the gallery" was omitted from Times coverage.

"I believe the photos were falsified," said Rubin. It wouldn't be the first time fake images were used. It's common scoundrel media practice. Western media, Al Jazeera, and other unreliable sources prioritize it. Willful deception is policy.

Rubin added:

"I am not an expert on photography, but I believe these are false (photos), indeed ridiculously so."

"I believe an intelligent editor should have had serious questions about this, especially after there has been so much controversy about falsified photos."

Featuring them is official scoundrel media policy. Lies substitute for truth.

On January 20, a Times editorial headlined "The Syrian Refugee Crisis." Opening comments distorted truth enough to make a sailor blush, saying:

"More than 60,000 innocent civilians have been slaughtered in President Bashar al-Assad’s desperate bid to retain power in Syria."

"In the two-year reign of terror, he has also forced staggering numbers of Syrians to relocate within the country or flee across the border, creating a disaster that is threatening to destabilize the region."

"The international community has an obligation to do more to ease the suffering."

It's his job. He's obligated to protect his people. Failure would be grossly irresponsible. Times editors didn't say. They point fingers the wrong way. They blame victims for imperial crimes. It's longstanding Times policy.

Its editors claim "(m)any Syrians have fled because of bombings by army troops, still others because of sexual violence."

Implied is that government forces bear full responsibility. They're protectors and defenders. They're not aggressors or rapists.

Syrians welcome them when they arrive for good reason. Without them, things would be far worse.

"Russia and China….enabled Mr. Assad in his brutal war, but (did) little to help his victims."

According to international law, there's no other way. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. None may attack accept in self-defense. They may do so until the Security Council acts. It has final say. Times editors didn't explain.

Times editors support them. They're dismissive of Syrian suffering. They're reliable imperial allies. They support wealth, power, and privilege. Popular interests don't matter. Nor does truth and full disclosure.

On February 4, Times contributor Roger Cohen disgraced himself. It wasn't the first time. He gets feature op-ed space. He takes full advantage. He headlined "Intervene in Syria."

Forget about right or wrong. Ignore rule of law principles. Disregard truth and full disclosure. Toe the imperial line. Time editors pay him to lie.

He's beholden to power politics. He's a pro-Israeli ideologue. His columns show where he stands. They're one-sided. They wreak with deception. They support what they should condemn.

"The ousting of its despotic ruler, Bashar al-Assad, would remove Iran’s sole Arab ally and cut the Iranian conduit to its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. That is in Israel’s strategic interest," he said.

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.